Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 12
71 A.F.T.R.2d 93-984, 93-1 USTC P 50,124,
16 Employee Benefits Cas. 1761
This appeal was originally heard on January 7, 1993, and decided by a detailed
written order dated January 25, 1993, which affirmed the judgment of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Sprizzo's Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated April 30, 1992. 789 F.Supp. 655. Upon further consideration,
we conclude that our decision should be published, and we accordingly repeat
the substance of our January 25th order in this opinion.
Plaintiff Weiner, appearing pro se, has chronicled her tale of frustrations
suffered while seeking a prompt and courteous remedy from the Internal
Revenue Service ("IRS") for its three erroneous and improperly executed levies
upon her pension fund at Long Island University and two bank accounts.
Weiner alleged several negative consequences of the erroneous tax liens,
including a denial of credit when a department store relied on a credit-reporting
bureau's notation of the liens on Weiner's record, loss of monthly income,
embarrassment, loss of reputation at the university where the pension fund was
kept, loss of credit rating, and ill health.
The IRS does not dispute that the three levies were unauthorized, and that they
were executed with lack of proper notice to Weiner. In fact, the IRS entered
into a settlement agreement to return the funds that the IRS obtained from the
wrongful levy against Weiner's pension account. We note however that the IRS
waited 2-and- 1/2 years after Weiner filed this lawsuit against it to do so.
The record is clear that Weiner's bank accounts were improperly levied upon
due to "computer error" at the IRS. In this suit, Weiner seeks damages flowing
from the wrongful levies. Weiner's principal concern however, is not money
damages, but what seems like a reasonable request under the circumstances-that the IRS provide a letter acknowledging its multiple errors, and a "statement
and or information" as to why Weiner's tax return was handled in an
unauthorized manner. Weiner further asks for the IRS collection division to
operate with "courtesy in handling clients", and that it acknowledge and
respond to communications. Finally, in a plea that evokes almost Orwellian
imagery, Weiner asks this court "[i]s there something in the IRS record that [I]
should know about?"
AFFIRMED.